In an exceedingly globalized world, where information mobility has become the norm and disruptive media has not shied back from calling out individuals, the exposé of the Pandora Papers has once again proven that there are no secrets in the world. In an attempt to hold the wealthiest accountable in the court of public opinion and unmask the underground world of tax havens as go-to sanctuaries for money peddling, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists has released over 11.9 million leaked documents with 2.9 terabytes of data on financial transactions.

The leak has highlighted that information is no longer limited to the higher echelons of society and that the media will go above and beyond to hold individuals accountable. In consonance with an evolving culture where information insurgents and their tradition of whistleblowing in the interest of the public is avidly appreciated, the Pandora Papers have succinctly outlined how the operation of money and power happens in the 21st century. The findings by ICIJ and its media partners have highlighted how secretive finance has muddled global politics and offer a deeper look into why governments have taken little initiative in putting a lid on offshore financial abuses. This jaw-dropping coverage is a product of the collaborative effort of over 360 media houses worldwide to reveal some of the private transactions and assets concealed offshore in tax havens in faraway islands and developed countries around the world.

Drawing parallels with the Panama Papers in 2016, we find egregious similarities. However, the extent of the Pandora Papers is much larger than its predecessor. The Panama Papers dealt with a single Panamanian firm known as Mossack Fonseca. By contrast, the Pandora Papers highlight the complicity of lawyers, investment bankers and middlemen at the core of the flourishing offshore industry. The series of exposures reveals over 330 politicians, high-level public officials and high-net-worth individuals.

The exposé of the Pandora Papers has led to the emergence of a babel of voices echoing opinions ranging from the causes to the implications of the revelations. Some argue that even though offshoring is considered morally deficient, it is not illegal in many jurisdictions. For example, there is leeway granted within the U.S tax code that allows the wealthy to dock their funds in offshore accounts. [Others say that the absence of America's wealthiest — like Bezos and Trump — in the Pandora Papers comes down to a lack of incentive owing to the generous tax rates they pay domestically.

Hailed as the paragon of information insurgency, the revelations made by the Pandora Papers highlight how the rich can flirt with their vast fortunes across borders. However, as pointed out, it falls short of mentioning the wealthiest individuals of the U.S.. The ICIJ’s selective approach in this investigation raises fundamental questions about the plausibility of ulterior motives behind this much-hailed campaign. Many critics have also pointed out that the “corruption exposed by the Pandora papers predominantly concerns cases in Russia or Latin America. How can this gap be explained?

A popular narrative that has been put forth by financial experts is that the US’ low tax rates (compared to other developed nations) contributed to these skewed findings. The consequence of these lower tax rates was that some Americans simply found no need to hoard money abroad.

Another explanation that has surfaced is is the plausibility that these ultra-rich Americans are likely to be carrying out transactions through companies whose finances were not revealed in the latest batch of documents.

Nevertheless, as we dig deeper, this alarming observation poses crucial questions about the nature of this investigation. While attempting to analyze the underlying reasons that govern the selective manner of this revelation, the first factor that comes to light is power relations. A coherent understanding of the funding structure of the ICIJ shows that it receives funding from donors like the Open Society Foundation and the Ford Foundation, which have shown apparent political inclinations in the past. Furthermore, according to ICIJ’s official website, ICIJ is also a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program linked to Amazon. In light of these discrepancies, a curious claim that has emerged is that these undertones might explain the exclusion of Americans wallowing in the oligarchy.

The ICIJ, claiming itself to be a torchlight of accountability, has the moral obligation to report infractions against the law irrespective of the political status of these billionaires.

In an age of relentless fabrication, our perception of reality is intricately engineered to create narratives that cater to the interests of those in power. Thus, before making a sweeping assertion about the effectiveness of investigative journalism, we must conduct a critical assessment of the larger paradigm under which these investigations are conducted.

While we must acknowledge that the ominous repetition of these [apocalyptic leaks] (https://marketresearchtelecast.com/edward-snowden-reveals-the-funny-side-of-the-apocalyptic-leaks-of-pandoras-papers/170781/) has contextualised the underground world of financial transactions, why has the ICIJ exposed improper dealings of several global elites but not any Americans? Is the quest of truth the sole motivation for media organizations with such complex and possibly conflicting interests?